Test: Basic Structure of the Constitution - 2 - UPSC MCQ

The Basic Structure Doctrine is a principle in Indian constitutional law that the Parliament cannot introduce laws that would amend the basic structure of the constitution. This doctrine aims to preserve the nature of Indian democracy and protect the rights and liberties of the people. The Kesavananda Bharati case brought this doctrine into the limelight.

The Kesavananda Bharati case held that the "basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment." This case played a significant role in defining the concept of the Basic Structure Doctrine and protecting the fundamental principles of the Indian Constitution.

The basic structure of the Indian Constitution includes features such as the Supremacy of the Constitution, Federal character of the Constitution, Rule of law, and many others. The power of the President to dissolve the Parliament is not considered a part of the basic structure.
 

In the Golaknath case, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier stance that the Fundamental Rights can be amended. It held that Fundamental Rights are not amenable to the Parliamentary restriction as stated in Article 13 and that to amend the Fundamental rights, a new Constituent Assembly would be required.
 

The Minerva Mills case added the features of judicial review and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) to the list of basic structural features. The Court held that a limited amending power itself is a basic feature of the Constitution.

The Waman Rao case held that the Basic Structure Doctrine should not be applied retrospectively to reopen the validity of any amendment to the Constitution which took place prior to April 24th, 1973, the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgement.

In the Indra Sawhney and Union of India case, the basic feature that was added to the list of basic features of the constitution was option 4: Harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSP (Directive Principles of State Policy). This case, also known as the Mandal Commission case, dealt with the reservation policy in India and its constitutional validity. The Supreme Court upheld the reservation policy but also emphasized the importance of maintaining harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSP.

In the S.R. Bommai case, the Supreme Court applied the Basic Structure Doctrine to Article 356, which deals with the imposition of the President's Rule on states. The Court held that policies of a state government directed against an element of the basic structure of the Constitution would be a valid ground for the exercise of the central power under Article 356.

The 39th Amendment Act was passed by the Parliament during the Emergency Period. This Act placed the election of the President, the Vice President, the Prime Minister, and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha beyond the scrutiny of the judiciary. This was done by the government in order to suppress Indira Gandhi's prosecution by the Allahabad High Court for corrupt electoral practices.

The main purpose of the Basic Structure Doctrine is to preserve the nature of Indian democracy and protect the rights and liberties of the people. This doctrine helps to protect and preserve the spirit of the constitution document and prevents legislative excesses by the Parliament.

Article 368 of the Indian Constitution provides the procedure for amending the Constitution. It includes the process of introducing amendments by both houses of Parliament and obtaining the President's assent.

In the Shankari Prasad Case, the Supreme Court contended that the Parliament's power of amending the Constitution under Article 368 included the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III as well.

In the Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain case, the Supreme Court applied the theory of basic structure and struck down Clause(4) of Article 329-A, which was inserted by the 39th Amendment in 1975 on the grounds that it was beyond the Parliament's amending power as it destroyed the Constitution's basic features.

In the Waman Rao case, the Supreme Court drew a line of demarcation as April 24th, 1973, i.e., the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgement, and held that the Basic Structure Doctrine should not be applied retrospectively to reopen the validity of any amendment to the Constitution which took place prior to that date.

The 9th Schedule was added to the Constitution by the First Amendment in 1951, along with Article 31-B, to provide a "protective umbrella" to land reforms laws. This was done in order to prevent them from being challenged in court, as they were considered essential for social and economic development.